In an 8–1 decision, the Court acknowledged that the right to strike is not absolute, and concluded that the National Labor Relations Act did not preempt lawsuits filed against the union, thus allowing litigation to continue.

The Union moved to dismiss Glacier's tort claims on the ground that the National Labor Relations Act preempted them.

Because the Union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA does not arguably protect its conduct," the decision said.

174, Darin Dalmat, said he was "relieved" that the decision did not explicitly overturn precedents and pleased the court "reaffirmed that strikers don’t have to give notice of the timing of a strike, outside of the healthcare industry.

[7] CNN analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck stated that the decision will create uncertainty for "when striking workers can and can’t be sued for damage to their employers" but stated that since Amy Coney Barrett’s analysis "rests on the narrow facts of this case" it was enough to bring in "two of the three Democratic appointees, and too narrow for some of her fellow conservatives.

General president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Sean O'Brien derided the justices as "political hacks" and argued that the Supreme Court had "again voted in favor of corporations over working people" by disregarding previous precedent in a press release.

He added that the ruling would give companies "more power to hobble workers" if there are attempts to fight against "a growing system of corruption.

[15] Sharon Block, a Harvard University professor, said the decision is like "putting a tax on the right to strike" and will chill labor activism.

"[19] Vox called it a "significant blow to workers’ right to strike" and said it will make it easier for "well-moneyed employers to grind down unions with legal fees.

"[20] Prior to the decision, Stanford Law professor William Gould, predicted that the court would narrow the jurisdiction of the NLRB and "expose unions to damages for engaging in strikes," which he described as "really unprecedented.